Peter Lucas: Ball's definitely not in Coakley's court

At the rate she has been battered by the courts -- both federal and state -- in the past few days, she may have to seek a restraining order on herself to keep her out of the halls of justice.

Either that or she needs to hire new lawyers.

Right now, the judicial scorecard reads: judges 16, Coakley 0. That score means Coakley could not get one of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to side with her on the abortion-clinic buffer-zone case, nor could she muster a single vote in her favor among the seven judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the casino referendum question. That's a lot of judges ruling against you.

It is not often that a lawyer, let alone the state's chief law officer, has taken such a public and humiliating beating at the hands of judges. In fact, the twofer has to be something of a record for Massachusetts attorneys general.

It makes you wonder just what Coakley has to do to win a case around here.

In the first case, she was handed her head when the Massachusetts SJC ruled last week that Coakley made a mistake when she rejected the petition placing the anti-casino question on the ballot for voters to decide on.

The case was appealed to the high court by casino opponents when Coakley, a casino supporter, declined to certify the question for placement on the ballot.

Advertisement

The court said: "We conclude that the attorney general erred in declining to certify, and grant the requested relief so that the initiative may be decided by the voters at the November election."

The ruling means that despite all the initial investments being made by the casino industry in Massachusetts, the issue will not be decided until the public votes on the matter this November.

It also means that the casino issue, once thought laid to rest after casinos were approved by the Legislature and the governor, will be the subject of debate once again in the race for governor.

It also hurt that one of the anti-casino activists is former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, the 1994 Democrat candidate for governor, who was at one time Coakley's boss when he was the Middlesex County district attorney and she was an assistant.

Coakley, still the leading Democrat candidate in the polls, could be put on the defensive, not so much for her pro-casino position, but for her attempt to deny the public the right to vote on the matter. She would have been far better off simply allowing the matter to be placed on the ballot. But she showed more concern for the financial risk being taken by the casino investors than she did for the voting public.

She told a press conference, with all the sincerity she could muster, that she was "pleased" with the court decision, a decision that made her look like a first-year law student.

The casino investors, who are all gamblers in the first place, took a gamble and lost. Coakley took a gamble as well, and she lost, too.

The fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down the 35-foot buffer-zone law at abortion clinics, which Coakley also defended, is more complicated.

While it is true it was another legal defeat for Coakley -- and a major victory for pro-life groups-- it could end up as a political asset, giving Coakley an issue to campaign on. The buffer-zone question is a burning issue with many pro-abortion women and progressives. And Coakley is the only woman running for governor in 2014.

"We're going to keep fighting," Coakley said. "We will utilize all of the tools we have available to protect everyone from harassment, threats and physical obstruction" outside abortion clinics.

What form that protection will take was not made clear. But what is clear is that the legal defeat over the buffer zone has given Coakley something she can campaign on better than any of her male opponents.

Who better to campaign on a woman's issue than a woman?

Some believe Coakley is a better politician than she is an attorney general, while some believe the opposite. Still others believe she is not very good at either. Yet, she has been elected attorney general twice, and she is still leading in the polls for governor. So what does that tell you about her opponents?

In the meantime, though, she might consider staying out of the courtroom for a while.

Does anybody have an extra reset button lying around?

Peter Lucas' political column appears Tuesday and Friday. Email him at luke1825@aol.com.

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sentinel and Enterprise. So keep it civil.